Advertisement

Computing with Analyzed Shapes

  • Djordje Krstic
Conference paper

Abstract

Shapes play an important role in many human activities, but are rarely seen in their natural form as raw and unanalyzed. Shapes are usually analyzed or structured in terms of their certain parts. Analyzed shapes or shape decompositions are central to this paper. Different shape decompositions are developed together with their algebras. The most interesting decompositions are the ones that could successfully be used as shape approximations. Two kinds of such decompositions: discrete and bounded are examined in greater detail.

Keywords

Equivalence Class Minimal Element Analyze Shape Spatial Object Shape Part 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Birkhoff, G: 1993, Lattice Theory, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  2. Bleicher, MN, Schneider, H and Wilson, RL: 1973, Permanence of identities on algebras, Algebra Universalis 3: 72–93.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Earl, C: 1997, Shape boundaries, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24: 668–687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Guatam, N: 1957, The validity of equations of complex algebras, Arch. Math. Logik Grundlagenforch 3: 117–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gratzer, G: 1979, Universal Algebra, American Mathematical Society, Providence, Rhode Island.Google Scholar
  6. Gratzer, G and Whitney, S: 1978, Infinitary varieties of structures closed under the formation of complex structures (Abstract), Notices American Mathematical Society 25: A–224.Google Scholar
  7. Knight, T: 2003 a , Computing with emergence, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30: 125–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Knight, T: 2003 b, Computing with ambiguity, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 30: 165–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Knight, T: 1988, Comparing designs, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 7: 73–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Krstic, D: 2001, Algebras and grammars for shape and their boundaries, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 28: 151–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Krstic, D: 1999, Constructing algebras of design, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 26: 45–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Krstic, D: 1996, Decompositions of Shapes PhD thesis, University of California Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  13. Shafaat, A: 1974, On Varieties closed under construction of power algebras, Bulletin Australian Mathematical Society 11:213–218.MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Stiny, G: 2001, How to calculate with shapes, in EK Antonson and J Cagan (eds), Formal Engineering Design Synthesis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 24–60.Google Scholar
  15. Stiny, G: 1994, Shape rules: closure, continuity, and emergence, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 21: S49–S78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Stiny, G: 1992, Weight, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 19: 413–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stiny, G: 1991, The algebras of design, Research in Engineering Design 2: 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Stiny, G: 1990, What is a design, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 17: 97–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stiny, G: 1980, Introduction to shape and shape grammars, Environment and Planning B 7: 243–251.Google Scholar
  20. Vickers, S: 1989, Topology Via Logic, Cambridge University Press, London, New York.MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Djordje Krstic
    • 1
  1. 1.AlcatelUSA

Personalised recommendations